Zach,
I've had no issues here since launching ipv6 other than that the
performance isn't amazing.
Andrew
On 1/8/2014 7:29 PM, Zach Hanna wrote:
OK. So who other than Andrew was able to get this working (and keep it
working) ?
I'm about to place an order for slow-verse for my residence...
OK. So who other than Andrew was able to get this working (and keep it
working) ?
I'm about to place an order for slow-verse for my residence...
-Z-
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Nikolay Shopik sho...@inblock.ru wrote:
On 04/12/13 23:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
Please tell me what provider is
On 04/12/13 23:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
Please tell me what provider is selling 100Mbit for $20-30 in the 408-532-
area of San Jose, California.
Currently, the only provider capable of delivering more than 768k wired
here is charging me $100+/month for 30-50Mbps maximum.
I could get
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:37:05 +, Gary Buhrmaster said:
It has been a long long time, but for the truly crazy, I
thought it was possible to write single characters at a
time (using a Set Buffer Address and then the character)
as long as you had set up the field attributes previously.
Lots
On 12/8/2013 9:48 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Very specifically:
A 3270 that took 5 seconds of delay and then *snapped* the entire screen
up at once was perceived as faster than a 9600 tty that painted the same
entire screen in about a second and a half or so. Don't remember who it
was either, but
- Original Message -
From: Phil Karn k...@philkarn.net
On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Currently, without a limit, there is nothing to convince a end user to
make any attempt at conserving bandwidth and no revenue to cover the
cost of additional equipment to serve
On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service. Your
customers will eventually find themselves depending on that excess
capacity often
- Original Message -
From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
While fiber installation can be expensive, one needs to ask the local
municipalities to install extra conduit every time the earth is broken
for a local project.
You will perhaps recall that I put NANOG through teaching me
On 12/9/13 2:03 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service. Your
customers will eventually find themselves
On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Currently, without a limit, there is nothing to convince a end user to
make any attempt at conserving bandwidth and no revenue to cover the
cost of additional equipment to serve high bandwidth customers.By
adding a cap or overage charge we can
On 12/8/2013 7:55 PM, Phil Karn wrote:
It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service.
Sometimes, yes. Othertimes, perhaps not.
I seem to recall an early bit of research on interactive computing
(maybe
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
I seem to recall an early bit of research on interactive computing
(maybe by Sackman) that showed user preference for a /worse/ average
response time that was more predictable (narrower range of variance)
than a better average
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We have the same deal here, for the same price per month you can have access
to ~80 megabit/s LTE, or you can have 100/10 cable. The problem is that with
LTE you get 80 gigabytes/month in cap. The cable connection doesn't have a
cap.
It does
On 12/9/2013 12:48 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
A 3270 that took 5 seconds of delay and then *snapped* the entire screen
up at once was perceived as faster than a 9600 tty that painted the same
entire screen in about a second and a half or so. Don't remember who it
was either, but likely Bell
On 12/8/2013 11:48 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
I seem to recall an early bit of research on interactive computing
(maybe by Sackman) that showed user preference for a /worse/ average
response time that was more predictable
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
... With 3270 you have little choice other
than full screen transactions.
It has been a long long time, but for the truly crazy, I
thought it was possible to write single characters at a
time (using a Set Buffer Address and then
On 12/5/13 7:35 PM, Phil Karn wrote:
On 12/05/2013 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If ATT has capped me, then, I haven’t managed to hit the cap as yet.
Admittedly, the connection isn’t always as reliable as $CABLECO, but
when it works, it tends to work at full speed and it does work the
vast
On Dec 5, 2013, at 16:35 , Phil Karn k...@philkarn.net wrote:
On 12/05/2013 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If ATT has capped me, then, I haven’t managed to hit the cap as yet.
Admittedly, the connection isn’t always as reliable as $CABLECO, but
when it works, it tends to work at full speed
On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user
networks anymore. Real consumption data:
Monthly_GBCountPercent
100GB 3658 90%
100-149 368 10%
150-199 173 4.7%
200-249 97
On Dec 6, 2013 5:16 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I realize most of the NANOG operators are not running end user networks
anymore. Real consumption data:
Monthly_GBCountPercent
100GB 3658 90%
100-149 368
On 12/6/13 8:14 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Thanks for the stats, real life is always refreshing :)
It seems to me -- all things being equal -- that the real question is
whether Mr. Hog is impacting your
other users. If he's not, then what difference does it make if he
consumes the bits, or if
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends on your carrier. From ATT, I have $29 unlimited and I have
definitely cranked down more over that (faster) LTE connection in some
months than through my $100+ cable
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
I generally get around 40-50 Mbps over LTE.
Downloading 500Gig at that rate would be roughly 1/2 of the maximum possible
throughput for the entire month.
Nope. 350 gigabyte in a month is an average of 1 megabit/s over the
entire month.
won’t reach
On 12/05/2013 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If ATT has capped me, then, I haven’t managed to hit the cap as yet.
Admittedly, the connection isn’t always as reliable as $CABLECO, but
when it works, it tends to work at full speed and it does work the
vast majority of the time.
ATT threatened to
Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com writes:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at
gmail.comhttp://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog wrote: *
On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
them and we don't charge for IPv6 add
ress space.
There is some ISP who
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com writes:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at
gmail.comhttp://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom rs at
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com writes:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at gmail.com
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom
Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for
consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do
still exist, right?
Brian
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob
Brian Dickson wrote:
And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence
that every network (LAN) must be a /64.
Get your history straight. The /64 was an outcome of operators deciding
there was not enough room for hierarchy in the original proposal for the
IPv6 address as 64
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for
consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do
still exist, right?
that's still a transit as, right? I think
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:32 , Nikolay Shopik sho...@inblock.ru wrote:
On 04.12.2013 4:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
them and
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Brian Dickson wrote:
And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence
that every network (LAN) must be a /64.
[snip]
about how many bits to add for hosts on the lan. The fact it came out to 64
The
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Rob Seastrom wrote:
Ricky Beam jfbeam at
gmail.comhttp://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
writes:
* On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
IF deployed by operators correctly, the global routing table should be 1
IPv6 route per ASN.
However, that is only feasible if each ASN can efficiently aggregate
forever (or 50 years at least).
and if your
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth
is rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer
levels.
Have you seen the cost of an LTE base station including install and
monthly fees? If you did, you
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Second of all, what would make much more sense in your scenario is
to aggregate at one or two of those levels. I'd expect probably the POP
and
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from
where does the 1M come from?
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:43 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com
wrote:
Second of all, what would make much more sense in your
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:35 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is
rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels.
Have you seen the cost of
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from
where does the 1M come from?
FIB table sizes,
On 12/4/13, 12:58 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from
where
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular
providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that
the rest of the math behind the scenes must work somehow.
Cost != price.
Also, wireless providers are not
In message cec4c38b.3a8eb%...@asgard.org, Lee Howard writes:
On 12/3/13 7:14 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who
On Dec 4, 2013, at 13:43 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular
providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that the
rest of the math behind the scenes
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends on your carrier. From ATT, I have $29 unlimited and I have definitely
cranked down more over that (faster) LTE connection in some months than through my
$100+ cable connection.
From VZW, I'm paying $100+/month and only getting 10GB over LTE, but
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants them
and we don't charge for IPv6 address space.
There is some ISP who afraid their users will be reselling their
connectivity to other users around. While I didin't see that in years
On 2-12-2013 22:25, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone *is*
paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone 256 networks
You clearly have no understanding of
Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com writes:
Does this mean we can all get back to solving real IPv6 deployment and
operations problems?
I sure hope so. :)
I certainly hope you all can finally see which is the better business choice
between:
1. Using up to around 10% of IPv6
On Dec 3, 2013, at 00:21 , Nikolay Shopik sho...@inblock.ru wrote:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants them
and we don't charge for IPv6 address space.
There is some ISP who afraid their users will be reselling
In message 529d9492.8020...@inblock.ru, Nikolay Shopik writes:
On 03/12/13 02:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants
them and we don't charge for IPv6 add
ress space.
There is some ISP who afraid their users will be reselling their
Hi,
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
On 11/28/2013 1:07 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Is a /60 what is considered generous these days?
Comcast only gives you a /64.
That could be awkward for anyone who wants to run a separate LAN for
wired and wireless. I hope it's only temporary.
Cheers,
Leo
smime.p7s
Wait, ISPs rolling out native dual stack are victimizing their customers?
From: Owen DeLong [o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:41 AM
To: Leo Vegoda
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
Agreed… Unforutnately
De : Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
This space wouldn't be used much anyway,
given that most 6RD routers use only one /64, sometimes two.
I argue that a /60 is actually the best compromise here, from
a space and usage point of view.
IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time this
jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com writes:
IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time this line of reasoning [...]
Hopefully, the fullness of time won't apply to 6RD (this is what
was being discussed here, not dual-stack).
I agree but there's a subtlety here - we don't want to get people
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
Except for a) greed (we can *sell* larger slices) and b) demonstrable
user want/need.
How many residential, home networks, have you seen with
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:31:08 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time...
I suspect it'll fall the other way. In a few decades, people will be
wondering what we were smoking to have carved up this /8 (and maybe a few
of them by then) in such an
On Dec 2, 2013, at 13:25 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
Except for a) greed (we can *sell* larger slices) and b) demonstrable user
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
wrote:
So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse
6rd...
Except for a) greed (we can *sell* larger slices) and b) demonstrable
user
want/need.
How many residential, home networks,
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways
now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
Interesting... I've not looked at the current high end (i.e. things that
cost more
On Dec 2, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
wrote:
So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse
6rd...
Except for a) greed (we can *sell* larger slices) and b)
On Dec 2, 2013, at 14:35 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways now
come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
Interesting...
In message op.w7hk1ee8tfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways
now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
On 12/02/2013 02:35 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
We don't know what we'll need in the future. We only know what we need
right now. Using the current dynamic mechanisms we can provide for now
and later, as later becomes apparent.
I hate to keep repeating this, but each time the argument comes up the 2
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it
today, you get a /64 without doing anything. If that's all you need, then
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each
other. It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the
upstream router and the router has more specifics to each of the two LAN
segments.
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:10 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it today,
you get
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:45 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each other.
It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the upstream
router and
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
For the few residential ISP's that do this what is it?
In message op.w7hmnqvjtfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment,
I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it
today,
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::)
And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine via
MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine isn't the issue; having an
address that can be trivially
In message op.w7hpn2m5tfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
(Hint, NEST has already released an IPv4 smoke detector).
And they really should have enabled IPv6 on it :-(
But the processor should be able to handle it, if
they update the firmware. I hear Tado does IPv6.
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:15 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one lan-per-device.
No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the
home (homenet) doesn't put any thought into it at all, and puts
everything in
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:45 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::)
And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine via
MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine
On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:57 , Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
(Hint, NEST has already released an IPv4 smoke detector).
And they really should have enabled IPv6 on it :-(
But the processor should be
On Dec 2, 2013, at 17:20 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one lan-per-device.
No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the home
(homenet)
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
were an effort to discourage the consumption of the addresses and/or the use
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:07:40 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Whenever they split or combine a CMTS or head-end...
Shouldn't matter unless they're moving things across DHCP servers. (which
is likely from what I've heard about TWC, and seen from my own modems. In
fact, the
On Dec 2, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
DHCPv6-PD isn't a restriction, it's simply what gets handed out today. A
simple reconfiguration on the DHCP server and it's handing out /56's
instead. (or *allowing* /56's if requested -- it's better to let the customer
ask
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:18:08 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or
negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making
...
Actually, your process still makes a very dangerous assumption... you have
to assume
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:27:36 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s)
can be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but
Uverse could use their monopoly on routers to make your lan a DHCP only
/120.
I
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
were an effort to discourage the consumption of the addresses and/or the use
of static addresses and
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:56:13 -0500, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
- A /56 is horribly wrong and the world will end if we don't fix it NOW.
I'm reminded of the Comcast trial deployments. Wasn't their conclusion
(with a collective thumbs up from the networking world) to go with /56?
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
The standards
On Dec 2, 2013, at 18:20 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:27:36 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s) can
be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but Uverse could
use
On Dec 2, 2013, at 18:05 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:18:08 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or
negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making
...
Actually, your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:02:39 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Not really... First of all, domain or other windows authentication could
be used to validate the request.
Most home networks aren't part of a domain. (unless they're using versions
beyond home, they can't)
Second, if
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:03:59 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Not counting MAC users, because they cannot do DHCPv6 without 3rd party
software.
My Macs seem to do DHCPv6 just fine here without third party software,
so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
I've heard many
On Dec 2, 2013, at 19:34 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 22:03:59 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Not counting MAC users, because they cannot do DHCPv6 without 3rd party
software.
My Macs seem to do DHCPv6 just fine here without third party software, so
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that 10.7 is fairly ancient at this point
I know, right? 2.5 years old is -ancient-
. o O ( sigh )
--
david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
dr...@icantclick.org ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail
Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
...
Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone
*is* paying for that space. Yes,
On 12/2/2013 6:15 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.
Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to
support yet another alteration to the standards.
I have some good
On 12/2/2013 7:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major
operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they
were an effort to discourage the
Two major versions back, is fairly ancient in internet years, yes.
Owen
On Dec 2, 2013, at 19:58 , david raistrick dr...@icantclick.org wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that 10.7 is fairly ancient at this point
I know, right? 2.5 years old is -ancient-
. o O ( sigh
On Dec 2, 2013, at 20:11 , Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
...
Handing out /56's like Pez is just
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
wrote:
So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse
6rd...
...
Handing out /56's like Pez
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Eric Oosting eric.oost...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
wrote:
So there really is no excuse on
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
